Monday night before midnight Arizona governor Doug Ducey vetoed a bill that would allow law enforcement to hide the names of police officers involved in fatal shootings or beatings for 60 days. This would prevent the public from finding out which police officer was involved in things. The thought behind this bill was for a cool down period after an event happened.
However, when the bill was proposed there was much concern over it. Civil rights groups and even some police chiefs were some that had concerns over the bill. The police chiefs believed that it would cause distrust in police and not allow them to do their job. I also believe this. If police officers could get away for 60 days after fatally shooting someone it could happen more often as they would not be as concerned with their name being released.
It has caused a split between law enforcement in Arizona, as some are for the bill and others are against it. To add another law that’s going to add distrust or adversarial relationships is not the way to go,” Roberto Villaseñor, the president of the association and chief of the Tucson Police Department, said Monday. He believes that if he had to bring up the subject again 60 days later it would cause even more problems. However, Steve Smith, who sponsored the legislation, noted that the bill had bipartisan support. “I think it’s a good bill, and I think it would have protected our officers,” he said.
I believe this bill would have been a bad idea if it had been passed. It would have caused more distrust towards police in a time where there is much distrust going on. I understand that they are only trying to protect their police officers and their families, but this is not the way to go. Had this been passed before Ferguson and other police shootings that have been happening I think it would have passed. What are your thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/us/politics/arizona-governor-doug-ducey-vetoes-holding-back-the-names-of-officers-in-shootings.html?ref=politics
4 comments:
Hearing about this bill has me extremely concerned not only for the people of Arizona, but police officers all throughout the country. I understand the intentions behind the bill claim to be to keep officers and their families safe after fatal incidents, but I truly believe it will only lead to more distrust towards our police. The 60 day waiting period won't make the public forget about the shooting, but cause more curiosity towards the case. There is already a distrust in police officers as of lately, due to the police shootings throughout the country. As in regards to Ferguson and the conflicts occurring there, I think a bill like this will cause outrage much like that all throughout the country. The people of Ferguson haven't forgot about the Michael Brown shooting and it has been months. 60 days won't be a settling period, but instead a period of protest and outrage due to the lack of knowledge the public will have about the situation. Police officers already have the upper hand when it comes the legal situations and by giving them the ability to law low for 60 days just increase the inequality more. If a adult citizen shot a police officer, fatal or not, their name would be all over the media. Just because a police officer would be the one pulling the trigger, that doesn't mean they deserve treatment any different than everyone else. I would be extremely upset if a bill of this nature was passed in New Hampshire.
It's a shame that lawmakers feel that Officers need to be protected from retribution. Whether or not an officer does something unscrupulous isn't the issue. The issue is that people might be more willing to attack an Officer rather than allow the courts to determine whether or not his action was unjust. This reflects a very real distrust in the Justice system felt by many communities and is something that should be corrected by better education of the public.
The police issue is one I posted a question about on one of Hillary's "I'm running for President" posts. Which she is running on a platform of legalizing Gay marriage- I also asked if she had a position, or what it was, on the break in our public administration when it comes to law enforcement.
in response to Michaels comment-which I respect that being his opinion- but the way I see it, the issue is actually that the courts have NOTHING to stand there opinions on regardless- leading to a outrage over any decision because they can't show you there check list of universal STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE that qualifies taking out and discharging your service weapon. Literally the courts can say whatever they want on this issue, and honestly... I have no respect for the decisions basis, I'm sorry but without ACTUAL LAWS TO INTERPRET on the subject matter, these courts are playing judge and jury... oh and GOD-while I won't refuse to recognize the decision, or take the law into my own hands, then again I am just one person who see's what is happening here.. so I think that is what we need to deal with, because this issue isn't going away and I can't ignore the facts- CONSTITUTIONALLY I have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness- and no law enforcement office with multiple yearly fatalities at the hands of their law enforcement has been able to provide even a documented STANDARD for service weapon usage! So as far as I'm concerned, you cannot tell me that we aren't letting entire HUGE cities in our country, turn into constitution rights-abusing police states.
p.s. not a joke, when I was pulled over yesterday, I was actually kind of fearful of the man coming up to my window- not overwhelmingly so, I'm not a scaredy cat, but as I got to drive away, I realized I had an actual not in my stomach the whole time I talked to him... I was fearful that I had no longer had rights in that situation, or that if I spoke of them (as someone who used to live in Plym, I'm sure the Plym police will tell you I have never been scared to cite my rights), it could lead do something so disproportionately consequential, that I chose to not even ask how it was he could be "watching me text" in an SUV while he was behind me in a car..and that is a serious problem. P.s. I wasn't texting, I did look at my phone right before he pulled me over though
Post a Comment